►
Description
For agenda and additional meeting information: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Calendar/A/
Videos of archived meetings are made available as a courtesy of the Nevada Legislature.
The videos are part of an ongoing effort to keep the public informed of and involved in the legislative process.
All videos are intended for personal use and are not intended for use in commercial ventures or political campaigns.
Closed Captioning is Auto-Generated and is not an official representation of what is being spoken.
A
Thank
you
very
much
broadcasting,
and
I
want
to
thank
all
the
members
of
the
senate
committee
and
legislative
operations,
all
the
presenters
for
their
patients.
We
have
a
bunch
of
committees
running
simultaneously
today
and
I
appreciate
everyone's
everyone's
patience.
I
want
to
welcome
everyone
to
this
afternoon's
meeting
of
the
senate
committee
on
legislative
operations
and
elections.
A
We
do
have
all
members
present
secretary.
If
you
please
note,
we
do
have
a
quorum.
All
members
are
present
a
few
quick
housekeeping
items.
As
everyone
knows,
the
currently
a
legislative
building
is
closed
due
to
the
pandemic.
A
As
a
result,
all
committee
meetings
are
being
held
virtually
meaning
committee,
members,
staff
and
presenters
are
participating
either
through
the
zoo
map
or
by
telephone.
As
most
of
you
are
doing
now,
you
may
view
committee
meetings
online
through
the
legislature's
streaming
service
or
on
the
legislature's
youtube
channel.
As
in
previous
sessions,
all
committee
related
information
is
available
on
the
nevada,
electronic
legislative
information
system
or
nellis,
which
is
accessible
from
the
nevada
legislature
website.
A
A
A
Additionally,
if
you
have
any
questions,
you
could
certainly
feel
free
to
call
either
my
office
or
the
committee
on
legislative
operations
and
elections.
If
you
want
to
send
in
written
testimony,
you
can
email
that
to
following
email
address
s-e-n-l-o-e
at
send.state.nb.us,
again,
that's
s-c-a-n-l-o-e
at
sen.state.nb.us
or
you
can
send
it
by
a
fax
machine
to.
A
775-684-6500-775-684-6500
just
please
we
ask
that
you
write
the
bill
number
that
you
are
submitting
written
testimony
on
today
we
are
hearing
one
measure
proposed
constitutional
amendment
senate
joint
resolution.
Seven,
however,
before
we
open
the
hearing
on
senate
joint
resolution,
seven
I'd
like
to
turn
it
over
to
our
committee
policy.
Analyst.
Mr
stewart.
We
have
a
brief
work
session.
Mr
stewart.
B
We
have
today
three
bills
on
work
session
and
I
hope
you
can
hear
me
the
first
one
is
senate
bill
51,
and
you
recall
that
was
from
the
on
behalf
of
the
division
of
human
resources
management.
We
heard
it
on
march
11
and
it
declares
that
it's
the
policy
of
the
state,
its
employees,
do
not
engage
in
gender-based
harassment
and
specifies
that
such
harassment
violates
this
policy
and
as
a
form
of
unlawful
discrimination.
B
B
The
proposed
conceptual
amendment
is
there
in
your
work
session
document
as
submitted
by
the
coalition
and
the
division.
It
would
from
what
I
can
tell
replace
entirely
subsection
6
of
subsection
5..
B
Now
I
know
that
mr
long,
mr
chair,
if
it's
okay,
I
know
that
peter
long,
the
administrator
of
the
division
of
human
resources
management
was
involved
in
the
discussions
concerning
this
amendment
and
he
may
be
able
to
assist
the
committee
with
questions
as
well.
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
A
Thank
you
very
much
director
stewart,
and
I
definitely
want
to
thank
mr
long
and
administrator
freed-
were
working
with
the
open
government
coalition.
I
believe
that
this
amendment
is
a
consensus
amendment
to
address
their
concerns
and
and
the
agency's
concerns
and
members.
If
there
are
any
questions,
we
are
very
lucky
to
have
mr
long
here.
C
D
It's
true,
mr
chair,
to
senator
ganzar
that
is
correct
after
determination
that
the
interest
in
disclosure
outweighs
the
interest
and
confidentiality,
and
we
would
discuss
that
with
our
with
our
day
before
before
I
did
that.
C
So
the
original
language
was
it
was,
it
was
just
confidential
and
now
it's
because
it
seems
like
if
there
was
a
court
order,
you
could
release
that
information.
I
guess
I'm
a
little
bit
concerned
that
the
administrator
has
discretion,
because
I
maybe
I
need.
Maybe
legal
can
help
me
with
this,
because
I
would
assume
that
any
complaints
that
are
filed,
personnel
type
complaints
that
are
filed
are
confidential
in
general,.
A
A
You
know
I'm
happy
to
excuse
me
for
me
once
like
I'd
like
to
we're
having
a
little
bit
of
a
technical
issue,
I'd
like
to
turn
it
over
to
mr
fernley,
our
legislative
council,
but
I
think
we'll
have
to
be
at
ease
for
just
a
minute.
I
think
he's
having
a
little
bit
of
a
technical
issue,
so
members
would
be
at
ease,
and
hopefully
that
can
get.
A
A
A
C
Thank
you,
chair
erdshaw.
When
I'm
looking
at
the
conceptual
amendment,
it
actually
provides
discretion
to
the
administrator
or
his
or
her
designee.
As
far
as
whether
information
is
to
be
kept
confidential,
and
I
was
thinking
in
most
personnel
cases
that
information
is
confidential.
Unless
a
court
requires
it
and
in
this
amendment
it
basically
is
weighing
the
interest
in
the
interest
in
disclosure
outweighs
the
interest
and
confidentiality.
But
I
I
know
if
there
was
an
individual
who
had
a
sexual
harassment
claim
or
gender-based
claim,
they
may
never
want
to
be
revealed.
C
They
are
going
to
want
to
investigate
it,
but
they
may
never
want
it
revealed
and
in
most
personnel
cases.
That's
my
question.
It
seems
like
that
type
of
information
is
held
confidential.
You
know,
under
what
circumstances
does
does
an
administrator
or
someone
other
than
a
court?
Have
the
ability
to
make
that
type
of
information
public.
D
Peter
long
for
the
record
for
you,
mr
chair,
I
would
just
point
out
that
in
the
original
original
version
it
had
this
verb
reach
for
the
administrator
to
be
able
to
reveal
that,
but
in
the
in
the
conceptual
amendment
it's
specific
to
unless
the
person
is
an
elected
official.
C
So
so
chair
and
charles,
my
question
still
goes
back
to
legal
and
whether
that
type
of
information
should
remain
confidential
unless
court
orders-
or
you
know,
someone
with
jurisdiction
versus
the
discretion
of,
in
this
case,
it's
our
administrator,
but
I'm
thinking
about
businesses
in
general
that
I
believe
that
type
of
information
has
to
remain
confidential.
A
A
Thank
you
very
much
committee
for
your
patience
and
thank
you
broadcasting
for
solving
our
technical
difficulties.
We'll
bring
the
committee
back
to
order.
Mr
fernley
senator
sieber
scanford
had
a
question
about
the
language
and
the
proposed
amendment.
G
Correct
and-
and
I
apologize
for
the
technical
difficulties,
my
understanding
of
the
question
is
that
is
whether
the
information
would
only
be
able
to
be
released
upon
a
court
order,
and
I
think
what
is
going
on
with
this
provision
is
that
these
are.
These
are
records
or
documents
that
are
in
the
custody
of
a
of
a
state
agency,
so
they
would
be
public
records
unless
the
legislature
declared
them
to
be
confidential.
G
So
what
this
is
doing
is
the
legislature
declaring
these
records
to
be
confidential
in
certain
circumstances,
and
the
legislature
certainly
has
that
authority
to
to
to
to
enact
laws
that
that
make
records
confidential.
G
C
I
was
really
kind
of
asking
just
in
general,
so
I
understand
what
you're
saying
that
the
legislature
can,
with
public
records,
could
deem
them
confidential
or
to
be
held
confidential
or
not
or
have
provide
discretion,
but
in
the
private
sector
I
thought
personnel
records
were
confidential
period.
So
is
that
not
accurate.
G
G
I'm
not
aware
of
anything
that
would
require
them
to
be
kept
confidential,
but
they
wouldn't
be
subject
to
any
kind
of
public
records
law,
so
they
could
keep
them
confidential.
If
there
was,
they
felt
the
need
to
do
that,
and
but
they
would
be
subject
to
you
know
subpoenas
or
court
orders
for
their
release.
C
You
know
that
that's
all
I'll
ask
for
now.
F
Okay,
I
have
a
couple
questions
in
the
hearing
we
talked
about,
I'm
gonna
look
at
the
the
first
version.
We
got
so
it's
in
the
training
on
page
three,
so
it
would
be
section
three
c
which
is
on
line
three
and
there
were
training
requirements
and
I
thought
we
talked
something
about.
I
mean
it's
all
good
to
put
something
in
that
you're
gonna
have
training,
but
if
there's
no
teeth
to
it,
then
it's
not
really.
F
I
don't
feel
comfortable.
I
mean
how
do
we
know
it's
gonna
happen.
How
do
we
know
what
it's
about?
I
it
says:
training
requirements
for
managerial
supervisory
employees
concerning
equal
employment
opportunity.
F
So
I
I
wish
that
there
was
some
kind
of
language
in
there
that
told
us
when
it
was
going
to
happen
or
maybe
it's
annually
or
biannually.
Or
you
know
I
don't
know.
So
that's
just
one
commenting
question
I
have
and
then
the
second
one
is
on
the
same
page
in
line
19
and
there
we
talk,
it
says
the
appointing
authority
shall
promptly
notify
the
sex
and
gender-based
harassment
and
discrimination
and
investigation
unit.
F
It
doesn't
say
it
says
promptly,
but
what
is
promptly,
and
so
I
feel
more
comfortable
if
we
had
something
in
there
24
hours
or
something
like
that.
D
Peter
long
for
the
record,
through
you,
mr
chair,
currently
in
regulations,
there
are
requirements
for
training
and
classes
concerning
sexual
harassment,
discrimination
and
that's
all
new
employees
within
six
months
must
have
training
and
supervisors,
and
managers
also
must
take
their
their
portion
of
that
training
within
six
months,
after
appointment
as
a
supervisor
or
manager
and.
D
That's
a
good
question,
no
definition,
but
we
would
expect
them
to
promptly
as
soon
as
they
become
aware
and
reasonable.
So
you
know,
as
you
said,
24
hours
that
would
that
would
be
not.
That
would
not
be
unreasonable,
but
it
could
be
a
friday
where
it's
a
weekend
and
they
can't
notify
us
until
a
monday
or
something,
but
I
would
say
reasonable
would
be
within
a
couple
days
of
them
being
aware
of
the
complaint.
H
Thank
you
and
chair
orange
raw.
I
had
a
question
I
one
I
I
think
I
share
some
of
the
same
questions
and
and
concerns
as
senator
sivers
answered
on
the
administrator
piece
of
this.
H
It
makes
sense
to
me
for
a
court
to
make
a
determination
after
we've
declared
something
to
be
confidential
and
especially
in
the
instances
of
sex
discrimination,
because
I
do
think
one
of
the
reasons
why
it
is
under
reported,
and
one
of
the
reasons
why
we've
seen
so
much
in
the
mean
two
movement
is
because
coming
forward
with
that
can
often
in
a
public
way,
can
often
result
in
retaliatory
actions
or
different
perceptions
of
that
particular
worker
that
they
just
complain
too
much
or
that
it's
an
issue,
and
especially
in
instances
where
potentially
an
investigation
doesn't
doesn't
find
a
violation
or
even
in
instances
where
it
does
so.
H
I
I
just
am
very
cognizant
of
some
of
the
implications
of
not
having
of
that
nature
be
confidential
unless,
in
certain
circumstances,
which
I
think
allowing
that
determination
in
the
interest
of
disclosure
outweighing
the
interest
and
confidentiality
makes
sense.
I
also
think,
though,
that
I
share
some
of
the
concerns
about
the
administrator
also
having
that
ability.
H
The
one
question
I
did
want
to
ask
in
addition,
was
on
this
last
line.
That
says
this
section
is
not
subject
to
nrs
288
505,
which
deals
with
the
subjects
of
collective
bargaining
and
wondering
the
purpose
of
that
language.
D
Peter
long
for
the
record,
through
you,
mr
chair,
to
the
senator
the
purpose
of
that
language
is
so
that
in
a
collective
bargaining
agreement,
they
could
not
contract
out
not
that
they
would,
but
they
so
it's
clear
that
they
cannot
contract
out
of
this
confidential
confidentiality
requirement.
H
D
Computer
along
for
the
record,
because
currently
288
and
nsb
135,
the
the
the
bill
that
created
collective
bargaining
for
state
employees,
allows
the
contracts
to
not
neces
not
to
have
to
adhere
to
nrs284
or
281.
H
And
I
know
that
section
of
nrs
deals
with
where
there's
conflict
of
laws
with
I
just
wanted
to
be
clear,
and
that
makes
sense
to
me.
You
can't
contract
out
of
the
confidential
confidentiality
piece,
and
if
it's
limited
to
that,
then
I
think
that
makes
some
sense
to
me.
Thank
you.
A
Members,
I
do,
I
think,
we've
just
been
joined
by
attorney
maggie
mccletchy,
who
is
with
the
open
government,
and
she
might
be
able
to
provide
some
other
answers
as
she
was
involved
with
mr
long
and
negotiating
this
consensus.
Amendment
and
ms
mcclatchy
we've
had
some
questions
concerning
the
confidentiality
in
the
proposed
amendment.
I
wonder
if
you
could
kind
of
walk
us
through
that.
I
For
example,
there's
a
high-profile
investigation
into
governor
cuomo's
conduct
in
new
york
right
now
and
as
originally
drafted,
the
language
would
have
would
have
shielded
that
information
from
public
view.
Similarly,
in
a
few
years
ago,
there
was
a
trustee,
not
a
state
employee,
but
it's
still
relevant
to
the
to
the
reason
for
the
need
for
transparency.
I
There
was
a
trustee
kevin
child
who
was
engaged
in
alleged
sexual
harassment
and
other
inappropriate
conduct
and
getting
access
to
that
information
was
vitally
important
for
the
public,
because
ccsd
took
the
position
they
could
not
control
him
and
because
the
voters
could
the
public
needed
access
to
information,
ccsd
resisted
access
and,
ultimately,
the
nevada
supreme
court.
Consistent
with
how
this
language
is
crafted.
I
In
the
amendment
balanced
the
need
of
the
public
with
the
right,
the
privacy
rights
of
of
victims
and
witnesses
to
come
forward,
I
think
that
the
language
here
strikes
a
good
balance
between
allowing
an
investigation
to
proceed
protecting
complainants,
while
still
allowing
the
public
access
to
information.
A
C
Thank
you,
chair,
armstrong,
and,
and
so
I
think
the
majority
later
said
very
well-
is
I'm
concerned
mostly
about
the
victims,
so
you've
kind
of
told
talked
about
the
other
side
of
the
equation.
So
the
folks
who
are
the
the
offenders
which
I
can
see
the
need
for
some
disclosure
on
that,
so
that
there's
not
other
people
who
are
affected,
but
this
amendment
doesn't
really
talk
about
that
and
again.
C
My
concern
is
that
individuals
won't
come
forward
because
they're
afraid
of
retaliation
they're
also
potentially
afraid
to
be
publicly
embarrassed
or
harassed
if
they
do
bring
forward
an
allegation.
And
so
I
don't
know
if
this
this
language
is
clear
enough
to
make
sure
that
potential
victims
are
protected.
I
Just
in
my
view
again,
this
is
maggie
the
pucci
for
the
record.
In
my
view,
it
does.
It
specifically
protects
complainants
and
victims,
not
just
their
names
but
other
identifying
issue
issues
other
identifying
information
concerning
the
concerning
victims
and
complainants
witnesses.
So
I
I
believe
that
it
does.
We
made
that
broader
than
just
than
just
identity.
I
It
does
not
allow
release
of
any
identifying
information
until
the
investigation
is
over
and
only
if
a
court,
the
court
determines
that
the
public
interest
in
disclosure
outweighs
the
interest
and
confidentiality
which,
which
is
exactly
the
balancing
test
that
we
already
have
in
common
law
through
the
nevada
supreme
court's
decision
in
the
ccsd
case,
in
which
they
upheld
disclosure,
but
did
direct
the
trial
court
judge
to
ensure
that
that
he
was
appropriately
considering
not
just
the
privacy
rights
of
potential
victims,
but
also
potential
complainants,
and
so
this
was
crafted.
I
I
wear
a
few
hats
as
a
lawyer.
In
addition
to
being
a
transparency
advocate
and
a
media
lawyer,
I
also
do
happen
to
represent
plaintiffs
in
sexual
harassment
cases
and
victims
of
sexual
assault,
and
in
that
capacity
I
do
understand
and
respect
the
need
to
protect
victims
and
witnesses
that
come
forward
this.
This
ensures
that
the
I
that
the
identity,
the
identity
is
protected,
the
identity,
is
protected.
C
Thank
you
for
your
response
and
when
you
just
described
what
you
just
outlined,
you
talked
about
the
court
specifically,
but
not
the
administrator,
and
I
guess
I'm
not
concerned
about
the
court
and
the
court
wayne
and
balancing.
But
this
the
way
that
I
read
this.
It
has
discretion
for
the
administrators.
So
is
that
not
accurate.
I
It
does
allow
for
discretion
for
the
administrator,
but
the
administrator
needs
to
apply
this
of
what
needs
to
apply
this
kind,
this
kind
of
balancing
as
well
and
needs
to
carefully
balance
the
concerns,
the
concerns
that
are
at
hand
when
you're
protecting
the
identities
of
complainants
and
victims
with
the
need
for
disclosure.
So
the
director
still
needs
to
do
that.
In
my
experience,
government
agencies
are
are
very
protective
of
personal
information
if
anything,
they're
they're,
often
more
protective
than
necessary,
and
sometimes
even
protect
information.
That's
out
in
the
public
domain,
for
example.
I
That
would
be
an
instance
in
which
the
interest
in
disclosure
of
the
information,
if
this
information,
if
related
information,
was
already
out
of
the
public
and
someone
wanted
to
correct
the
record
and
get
access
to
the
underlying
documents
with
the
identity
revealed
that
might
be.
That
might
be
appropriate
because
there
there's
not
a
great
interest
in
in
privacy
if
a
victim
has
already
a
victim
or
a
witness
has
already
come
forward
or
say,
there's
been
a
court
case
about
that
that
witness
that
information
is
already
out
there.
C
A
All
right,
I'm
not
seeing
any
additional
questions.
Thank
you,
mr
long
and
ms
mcclechy
for
answering
questions
about
the
amendment.
Thank
you
for
working
so
hard
to
reach
consensus
on
this
amendment
so
make
sure
that
the
bill
provides
for
transparency
but
also
accomplishes
the
goals
the
state
seeking
to
accomplish.
A
C
Thank
you
also,
I'm
going
to
vote
I'm
going
to
support
this,
because
I
do
think
that
we
need
to
make
sure
that
we
prohibit
these
types
of
actions,
but
I
just
want
to
reserve
my
right
in
case.
You
need
to
amend
this
or
make
any
modifications
to
to
as
far
as
the
confidentiality
piece.
Thank
you.
H
Thank
you
cheer
orange
ron.
I
I
I
am
going
to
also
vote
yes
on
this
with
reservation.
I
think
there's
just
some
additional
conversation
and
maybe
some
modifications
I
think
I'm
along
with
senator
seaver's
cancer
on
this
piece.
A
F
A
B
B
A
Thank
you
very
much,
and
I
know
that
senator
harris
worked
very
hard
on
this
measure
and
I
believe
you
know
we
did
have
testimony
asked
from
the
fiscal
analysis
division
about
the
ability
to
perform
this
members.
Are
there
any
questions
regarding
senate
bill
268?
If
not
I'd
open
up
for
a
motion
move.
Did
you
pass?
A
A
B
Yes,
thank
you,
mr
chair
again
for
the
record
michael
stewart.
The
last
bill
on
work
session
today
is
senate
bill
292.
As
you
recall,
it
was
processed
by
our
vice
chair.
Senator
lange
requires
ballots
for
general
election
to
permit
the
voter
to
vote
a
straight
ticket
for
all
candidates
in
one
political
party
in
those
partisan
races
does
require
a
voter
education
program
to
be
provided
by
the
county
to
include
information
regarding
straight
ticket
voting.
B
The
measure
also
addresses
minor
party
valid
access.
It
increases
the
number
of
signatures
required
for
minor
party
plot
access
from
one
percent
to
two
percent
of
the
total
number
of
votes
cast
for
representative
congress
at
the
last
general
election,
and
it
also
notes
that
those
signatures
must
be
apportioned
equally
among
the
petition
districts.
B
The
bill
adjusts
the
the
date
of
those
petitions
when
they
must
be
filed
to
june
1st
and
as
well
as
a
subsequent
challenge
date
regarding
mario
party
ballot
access
petitions
senate
bill
293
also
makes
various
changes
regarding
the
filling
of
vacancies
in
elective
office.
I
would
note
that,
for
the
vacancy
for
u.s,
senator
sp
292
would
require
the
governor
to
appoint
a
person
who
is
of
the
same
political
party.
B
Sb292
requires
that
a
majority,
the
majority
leader
or
the
minority
leader
of
the
house,
of
which
the
former
legislator
was
a
member
and
who
is
of
the
same
party
as
the
former
legislator
to
submit
to
the
board
of
county
commissioners
a
list
of
qualified
nominees
to
fill
that
vacancy
and
then
finally
sb292
repeals
provisions
in
title
24
that
set
forth
various
requirements
concerning
the
internal
organization
and
procedures
of
major
political
parties,
and
I
can
certainly
go
through
the
amendment
mr
chair,
unless
the
vice
chair
would
like
to.
But
I've
got
it
listed
here.
A
F
Thank
you.
So,
since
the
hearing
and
listening
to
the
comment
from
people,
I
have
changed
the
percent
for
minor
candidates
to
qualify
back
to
one
percent.
F
Additionally,
senator
sieger's
answer,
I
made
a
change
on
how
we
fill
legislative
seats,
giving
the
county
commission
the
right
to
reject
a
list
of
names
and
given
to
them
and
then
having
a
new
list,
provided
they
could
do
that.
One
time
so
and
then
the
other
change
is
on
came
from
the
county
clerks,
and
that
is
on
page
five
of
the
amendment
where
it
would
go
through
the
secretary
of
state
to
get
approval
from
the
secretary
of
state
and
the
state
board
of
examiners
to
get
money.
F
If
you
were
to
have
a
primary
from
the
statutory
contingency
account,
and
while
this
is
in
here,
I
just
want
to
remind
people
the
last
time
we
had
an
election
like
this
was
in
2011
and
before
that
I
think
it
was
like
40
years
ago.
So
it's
not
like
it
happens
often,
but
I
think
it's
important
to
have
that
language
in
there,
because
it
is
expensive
for
a
county
to
do
an
election.
A
C
C
I
I
really
thought
that
maybe
there
should
be
more
than
one
person
as
far
as
a
nominee,
so
it
would
be
two
or
more,
but
but
anyway,
I
appreciate
the
amendment
you
made
there,
but
I'm
going
to
be
opposed
to
the
bill
and
nevada
is
a
small
state
and
we're
a
state
where
our
constituents
know
us
and
when
we
get
together
as
as
members
of
this
body,
we
work
very
well,
and
I
look
forward
to
working
across
the
aisle.
C
With
with
my
my
fellow
colleagues
and
in
my
mind,
when
you
have
a
partisan
straight
ticket
ballot,
we're
setting
up
a
culture,
that's
more
like
washington
dc,
where
people
are
looking
at
partisanship
versus
policy
and
who
that
individual
is-
and
I
really
appreciate
the
culture
that
we
have
in
nevada
here,
where
we
do
work
across
the
aisle
where
our
our
voters,
who
are
very
independent,
know
us.
They
personally
know
us
very
frequently
and
they're.
They
can
distinguish.
C
I
do
recognize
that
you
can
check
the
partisan
box
at
the
top
and
then
you
can
go
down
and
select
people,
but
you
know
I
trust
the
voters
and
that
they
will
stay
informed
and
that
they
can
select
who
they
want
to
represent
them,
and
I
don't
want
us
to
move
towards
dc
and
the
hyper
partisanship
that
we
see
there.
I
want
us
to
work
on
policy.
I
want
us
to
work
across
the
aisle.
C
I
want
our
voters
to
know
us
and
I
think
the
last
election
showed
that
we
do
have
voters
that
are
involved
and
I
trust
them
and
that
you
know
again
just
checking
the
box
at
the
top.
It's
been
it's
not
like,
according
to
some
of
the
testimony
that
we've
had
that
or
that's
existed
in
other
states
and
they've
repealed
it
for,
for
a
variety
of
reasons,
I'm
sure.
C
So
that's
why
I'm
gonna
vote
no
is
because
again
we
don't
have
a
hyper
partisan
culture
in
nevada
right
now,
and
I
don't
want
us
to
go
any
further
down
that
road.
I
I
want
us
to
continue
to
be
independent
and
have
a
strong
relationship
with
our
constituents
as
well
as
looking
forward
to
working
across
the
aisle
with
my
colleagues
of
the
the
other
party,
the
opposing
party.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
very
much
senator
sievers
cancer,
any
additional
discussion,
and-
and
I
too
I
I
appreciate
your
working
with
all
the
stakeholders.
I
appreciate
your
working
with
the
minor
parties
vice
chair
lang
and
one
of
the
questions
I
had
during
the
hearing.
I
really
like
how
this
you
know
this
change
would
apply
to
anyone.
A
non-partisan
voter
could
could
choose
to
vote,
however,
they
wanted
to
if
they
chose
to
yet
still
have
that
freedom
to
vote
for
individual
offices.
So
thank
you
for
working
so
hard
on
this
secretary
roll
call
vote
on
senate
bill.
J
A
Yes,
thank
you
secretary,
that
a
bill
292
does
pass
and
I
will
assign
that
field
statement.
A
That
brings
us
to
the
end
of
our
work
session
and
I
want
to
thank
our
presenters
for
their
patience.
We
will
now
open
the
joint
resolution.
Seven.
I
still
have
senator
dondero
loop
here.
We
might
need
to
be
at
ease
for
a
minute
just
to
make
sure
all
the
presenters
are
ready,
but
I
believe
we've
got
our
presenters
for
senate
joint
resolution,
seven
good
afternoon
or
good
evening,
senator
andera
loop.
Thank
you
for
your
patience.
A
L
Thank
you
very
much,
sir.
Thank
you
chair,
arne,
shaw
and
committee
members
for
the
record.
I
am
marilyn
dondero
loop,
representing
senate
district
8
in
clark
county,
I'm
pleased
to
be
joined
today
by
assemblyman
tom
roberts
representing
assembly
district
3..
We
are
presenting
senate
joint
resolution,
7
the
nevada,
higher
education,
reform,
accountability
and
oversight,
amendment,
which
relates
to
the
governance
of
the
unite
of
the
university
of
nevada
system.
I
am
sure
many
of
you
are
aware
of
the
general
contents
of
the
bill.
L
Additionally,
the
nevada
constitution
provides
for
the
board
of
regents
to
control
and
manage
the
affairs
and
funds
of
the
state
university
under
regulations
established
by
law
senate
joint
resolution.
7
proposes
to
remove
the
constitutional
provisions
governing
elections
and
duties
of
the
board
of
regents
and
its
control
and
management
of
the
affairs
and
funds
of
the
state
university
instead,
sjr7
would
require
the
legislature
to
provide
bylaw
for
the
governance
of
the
state
university.
L
I
want
to
stress
that
sjr
7
does
not
repeat,
does
not
repeal
any
existing
statutory
provisions
governing
the
board
of
regents,
including
those
that
provide
for
the
election
of
board
members.
However,
it
would
make
the
board
a
statutory
body
whose
structure
membership
powers
and
duties
are
governed
by
those
existing
statutory
provisions
subject
to
any
statutory
changes
made
through
the
legislative
process.
L
L
L
L
It
is
our
collective
investment
in
the
future
of
our
state,
as
you
recall,
assembly
joint
resolution
5
on
the
79th
session,
which
proposed
some
of
the
same
amendments
as
that
are
in
sjr
7,
passed
overwhelmingly
in
two
legislative
sessions,
and
we
are
grateful
for
the
support
of
our
colleagues
senate
joint
resolution.
7
removes
the
board
of
regents
from
the
nevada
constitution,
but
does
not
substantially
substantively
change
any
higher
education
policy
or
procedure.
L
It
simply
puts
the
board
of
regents
and
the
nevada
system
of
higher
education
on
par
with
every
other
governing
board
and
state
agency
created
pursuant
to
statute.
Chapter
396
of
nrs
would
continue
to
exist
and
would
still
comprehensively
covering
the
board
of
regents,
and
it
still
includes
the
requirement
that
the
board
be
elected.
L
L
L
We
will
see
a
resurgence
of
strong
support
for
the
nevada
system
of
higher
education
and
the
board
of
regents,
mr
roberts
and
I
pledge
our
support
to
work
with
the
nsu
administration
and
the
board,
on
behalf
of
the
students,
their
families
and
our
communities
to
have
the
best
system
in
the
nation,
sharon,
orenshall
and
committee
members.
This
concludes
my
testimony
and
I
would
like
to
turn
over
the
microphone
to
assemblyman
roberts,
who
will
provide
further
information
about
sjr7.
M
All
right,
thank
you,
chair
or
shaw,
and
thank
you
senator
don
darrell
loop
and
distinguished
committee
members
for
the
record.
I'm
assemblyman
tom
roberts
representing
assembly,
district
13
in
clark
county,
I'm
pleased
to
join
senator
don
darrell
loop
and
my
support
for
sjr
7.,
I'd
like
to
point
out,
as
set
forth
in
the
ballot
question
arguments
for
ajr5
in
the
2017
legislative
session
that
also
al,
and
although
that
some
other
states
have
elected
boards
with
constitutional
status,
that
control
and
manage
particular
institutions
and
programs
of
public
higher
education.
M
These
assertions
have
given
some
people
the
impression
that
the
board
conducts
itself
as
a
fourth
branch
of
government
and
if
the
board
too
often
invokes
its
constitutional
status
as
a
shield
against
additional
legislative
oversight
and
accountability.
Again,
as
senator
don
darrell
luke
noted,
things
have
improved
in
recent
years.
Nonetheless,
this
general
government
structure
needs
to
be
changed.
A
good
example
of
this
is
how
the
university's
budget
is
administered,
while
the
nevada
constitution
requires
a
legislature
to
provide
financial
support
for
the
operation
of
our
universities.
M
M
Senate
joint
resolution,
7
clarifies
and
modernizes
existing
provisions
of
the
nevada
constitution
relating
to
the
administration
of
these
federal
land
grant
proceeds,
however,
because
the
state
of
nevada
must
administer
those
proceeds
in
a
manner
required
by
federal
law.
Sjr
7
will
not
change
the
purpose
or
the
use
of
these
proceeds
in
closing
senator
de
darrell
loop,
and
I
know
that
sjr7
represents
a
second
bite
at
the
apple.
If
you
will
this
time,
however,
the
language
in
sjr
7
is
softened
from
ajr5
and
now
calls
for
governments
rather
than
control
and
management
of
the
state
university.
M
This
new
gentler
language
in
the
audit
provision
will
bring
an
enhanced
level
of
transparency
and
trust
that
our
system
of
higher
education
so
desperately
needs
with
that
chair
on
shaw
and
members
of
the
committee.
This
concludes
our
presentation,
as
noted
before
we'd
love,
to
pass
this
on
to
ms
marine
shaffer
to
address
sjr7
and
then
mr
warren
hardy.
I
hope
that
you
consider
supporting
this
sjr7
and
we
look
forward
to
seeing
it
on
the
ballot
in
2024.
and
mr
chair.
M
A
J
Thank
you
good
afternoon,
mr
chair
and
members
of
the
committee.
My
name
is
maureen
schaefer
and
I
am
the
executive
director
of
the
council
for
a
better
nevada.
We
are
a
community
organization
comprised
of
labor
business
and
philanthropic
leaders,
whose
purpose
is
to
impact
progress
on
issues
that
will
increase
the
quality
of
life
for
all
nevadans.
J
We
want
to
thank
senator
donderol,
loop
and
assemblyman
roberts
for
bringing
forward
sjr7
and
testifying
strong
support
of
the
opportunity.
This
bill
presents
for
greater
accountability,
transparency
and
oversight
of
the
nevada
system
of
higher
education,
a
system
that
carries
with
it
a
one
billion
dollar
biennial
budget
in
taxpayer,
dollars
in
the
operation
of
the
seven
institutions
and
the
corporate
nc
office
within
it
today.
J
Our
students,
academic
success
success
represents
this
future
nevada,
yet
the
state's
public
investment
of
one
billion
dollars,
which
has
been
a
consistent
important
priority
of
this
legislature,
has
remarkably
re
ranked
16th
nationally
in
per
pupil.
Spending,
has
also
consistently
translated
to
46,
nationally
in
college
attainment
outcomes.
J
J
Nevada
has
been
one
of
the
fastest
growing,
if
not
the
fastest
states
in
population
growth.
The
last
many
decades.
Our
learning
institutions
have
added
student
numbers,
increased
diversity
and
have
responded
to
their
local
economies
to
understand
the
types
of
workforce,
their
local
communities
need
to
aid
our
growing
economies.
However,
the
governance
structure
of
our
higher
education
system
is
struggling
to
be
able
to
respond
to
those
opportunities.
J
J
J
More
simply,
they
consistently
are
struggling
to
challenge
and
keep
up
with
the
business,
academic
and
people
largesse
of
their
own
billion
dollar
organization.
Change
is
hard,
even
when
you
know
you
need
it
and
change
management
principles
will
say.
The
most
organizations
have
difficulty
reforming
chronic
legacy
issues
from
the
inside
by
placing
the
board
of
regents
in
the
governance
of
the
nevada
legislature.
J
No
solution
would
ever
be
no
public
government
institution
ever
is,
however,
this
change
does
create
increased
accountability,
and
transparency,
then,
does
exist
today
in
the
current
system
for
nevadans
to
understand
how
current
funds
are
spent
and
how
the
board
is
making
decisions
on
behalf
of
its
institutions
and
students.
It's
important
to
note.
As
has
been
said,
this
change
implements
checks
and
balances
without
changing
the
current
regent
governance
structure
itself,
which
already
has
itself
proven
itself
as
expensive
and
unmanageable.
J
J
All
parties,
the
public,
the
students,
the
legislature
and
anshi,
stand
to
benefit
from
this
change.
I
want
to
thank
again
the
committee
for
hearing
this
critical
bill
and
for
increased
transparency,
accountability
and
performance
of
all
nevada's
higher
education
system.
We
urge
you
to
pass
sgr
7..
Thank
you.
N
Thank
you,
chair
arnold
members
of
the
committee,
it's
a
pleasure
to
be
here
tonight
and
thank
you
for
taking
the
time
to
to
hear
this
important
issue
what
we're
really
at
the
end
of
the
day.
What
we're
trying
to
do
here
in
my
mind,
sorry,
that's
my
son,
I'll
call
him
back.
What
we're
trying
to
do
here
today
is
is
return
to
what
we
believe
is
the
original
ten
intent
of
the
framers
of
the
constitution.
N
N
But
if
you
take
the
time
to
read
the
the
history
and
the
minutes
and
documents
from
the
1864
constitutional
convention
on
this
particular
subject,
it
becomes
very,
very
clear,
very,
very
quickly,
but
that
what
the
founders
intended
in
giving
some
constitutional
authority
to
the
board
of
regents
was
directly
related
to
the
more
moral
act,
morale
act
which
was
passed
in
1862.
N
It's
also
abundantly
clear,
based
on
the
those
the
public
record
from
those
debates
that
the
legislature
fully
intended
to
the
for
the
legislature
to
have
significant
oversight.
In
fact,
one
of
the
proponents
of
the
legislature
in
that
conversation
spoke
specifically
about
not
wanting
the
board
of
regents
to
think
they
have
more
power
than
they
do,
and
so
it's
pretty
clear
in
my
mind,
I'm
pretty
hard
to
argue
that
the
founders
intended
for
the
legislature
to
have
significant
oversight
and
not
to
create
a
fourth
branch
of
government.
N
At
that
time,
at
that
time,
and
unfortunately
in
1948,
there
was
a
supreme
court
ruling
that
caused
some
confusion
about
this,
and
in
1948
the
supreme
court
ruled
that
there
is
some.
There
is
some
limit
on
the
legislature's
authority
over
the
board
of
regents,
but
that
ruling
was
very
limited,
very
specific
and
unfortunately,
since
that
time
the
board
of
regents
has
taken
that
argument
and
sort
of
evolved
it
into
this
notion.
N
As
they
argued,
I
think
it
was
in
1981
that
they
have
a
unique
constitutional
status
that
provides
virtual
autonomy
and
thus
immunity
from
legislative
actions
or
certain
legislative
actions.
That
is
entirely
inconsistent.
I,
I
would
argue,
the
supreme
court
ruling
of
in
1948
was
inconsistent
with
what
the
founders
intended,
but
that
that
argument
that
was
used
in
1981
to
say
that
they
have
a
unique
constitutional
status
and
therefore
immunity
from
legislative
action
in
certain
cases
is
exactly
the
opposite
of
what
the
founders
intended.
N
So
so,
mr
chair,
as
a
result
of
tradition,
as
relative
circumstances,
we've
essentially
created
since
1948,
we've
essentially
created
a
system
of
government
where
we
have
another
branch
of
government
which
is
the
which
is
the
board
of
regents.
The
problem
with
that-
and
I
do
know
enough
about
the
constitution,
to
know
this-
that,
because,
if
you're
going
to
have
a
branch
of
government
in
the
constitution,
there's
got
to
be
checks
and
balances,
that's
a
fundamental
reality
of
our
constitutional
form
of
government.
That
clearly
does
not
exist
for
this.
N
This
inadvertent
fourth
branch
of
government
that
we've
created,
so
what
this
bill
does,
I
believe,
is
goes
back
to
the
voters,
ask
them
to
reconsider
this
question
and
and
and
have
an
opportunity
to
to
understand
it,
and
that's
key
point
to
the.
Why?
Because
I
know
the
first
question
that's
going
to
come
is:
why
are
we?
Why
are
we
revisiting
the
public's
already
voted
on
it?
Well,
in
our
post-election
voting
and
and
analysis
of
the
of
the
ballot?
N
N
They
did
not
understand
the
question
and
so
that
that
a
lot
of
that
blame
goes
to
us
for
not
being
clear
enough
on
what
it
was
we
intended
and
what
we
wanted
to
to
have
asked
that
this
legislation
and
this
this
resolution
excuse
me-
is
specifically
intended
to
come
up
with
a
a
much
clearer
ballot
initiative.
So
the
public
can
understand
what
we're
trying
to
do,
and
I
think
my
colleagues
have
pretty
are
pretty
well
articulated
what
it
doesn't
do.
It's
not
our
intent.
N
We
I'm
unaware
of
anybody
that
has
had
any
conversations
about
changing
the
current
status
in
the
context
of
this
of
this
statute
or
this
resolution.
We
simply
think
the
founding
fathers
of
the
state
of
nevada
intended
for
the
legislature
to
have
significant
impact.
I
would
even
go
as
far
and
that's
just
my
opinion,
but
I
would
even
even
go
as
far
as
to
say,
but
for
the
morale
act
a
dynamic
they
probably
wouldn't
have
provided
that
kind
of.
N
A
C
Oh,
thank
you.
So
thank
you,
chair
oranchal,
so
I
was
looking
at
the
provisions
around
the
auditing,
which
is
under
section
four
two.
Why
you're
putting
that
in
the
constitution,
because
I
think
the
legislative
legislature
has
that
type
of
authority
anyway,
is
to
do
audits
or
reviews
or
whatever
they
want
to.
So
I
wasn't
sure
why
you
were.
You
were
adding
that
in
the.
N
Constitution,
thank
you
chair
and
charles.
That's
it
that's
a
good
question.
Part
of
the
reason
is
based
on
our
public
outreach
and
our
polling
that
this
is
something
that
we
believe
the
public
clearly
wanted
to
see
in
in
the
statute.
There
was,
there
was
no
question
on
on
the
feedback.
We
got
that
they
wanted
to
see
an
audit
of
the
system
in
the
constitution,
so
that
that's
the
reason
we
included
it.
C
I
don't
have
any
follow-up
questions
at
this
time.
Thank
you.
C
C
Please
go
ahead,
so
I'm
fairly
familiar
with
the
system
of
higher
ed
and
I
and
I
think,
there's
there's
narratives
out
there
that
aren't
necessarily
accurate,
and
I
think
it's
important
to
recognize
that
both
both
four-year
institutions,
unr
unlv,
are
two
their
tier
one,
u.s
news
and
group
report,
but
they're
also
r1,
which
is
high
research,
and
so
it's
kind
of
amazing
for
a
small
state
like
ours
to
have
the
level
of
education
available
for
for
our
students
and
also,
I
think
it's
important
to
recognize
that
they,
when
you
look
at
the
university
of
nevada,
reno
the
graduation
rates
or
graduation
rates,
currently
like
61
or
62,
which
is
above
average
for
a
a
public
school.
C
So
I
think
we
need
to
recognize
how
hard
the
institutions
are
working
to
educate
our
our
students,
and
I
also
want
to
recognize
the
community
colleges,
because
they
partner
so
frequently
with
the
private
sector,
to
try
to
make
sure
that
they're
providing
the
workforce.
That's
needed
and
there's
definitely
room
for
improvement,
because
it's
a
moving
target
as
we've
experienced
with
covid
19
right,
so
some
of
the
jobs
that
existed
aren't
going
to
exist
anymore
and
they
have
to
be
key
partners
with
the
private
sector.
So
I
I
feel
like
they.
C
They
have
become
a
target
for
for
negative
comments
and
I
think
that
they're
doing
a
you
know
an
amazing
job,
and
I
do
hope
that
we
can
continue
to
support
them
because
we
need
to
raise
the
bar
the
education
bar
in
the
state,
because
that's
how
we're
going
to
have
a
stronger,
more
resilient
economy.
So
I'm
not
that
isn't
related
to
this.
C
The
measure
that's
before
us,
but
I
do
think
that
there's
this
narrative
that's
out
there,
that
the
the
schools
are
underperforming,
but
we're
not
I
mean
the
the
schools
for
the
state
of
nevada
have
done
a
really
great
job,
whether
the
community,
colleges
or
nevada,
state
college
or
gri,
which
is
renowned
you
know
across
the
world.
So
I
just
wanted
to
add
that
comment
and
then
we
can
continue.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
N
A
L
I
was
just
going
to
make
a
quick
comment,
because
I
still
appreciate
what
senator
sievers
cancer
is
saying,
and
I
don't
think
anybody
has
any
question
about
how
hard
our
universities
are
working
and
the
great
job
that
they're
doing
on
both
ends
of
the
state
and
in
every
other
community
college.
I
think
that
we
have
some
really
great
things
going
on,
and
I
don't
think
this
addresses
that
I
don't
think
anybody's
questioning
that.
I
think
that
the
question
is
is
that
the
system
has
been
put
into
the
constitution.
L
N
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
and,
and
I
just
want-
I
just
want
to
do
the
same
thing.
I
just
sort
of
want
to
associate
myself
with
senator
ganzard's
comments,
because
I
think
it's
remarkable
and
it's
something
that
everybody
in
nevada
be
ought
to
be
a
proud
of
that.
We
have
two
top
tier
research,
universities
in
nevada.
N
That's
really
remarkable
and-
and
I
recently
learned
that-
and
I
think
this
is
accurate-
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong
maureen,
but
I
recently
learned
learned
that
each
of
our
graduates,
in
our
first
year,
graduating
class
of
the
medical
school
matched
at
at
top
top
tier
schools
for
their
for
their
residencies.
That's
remarkable
in
terms
of
what
you're
talking
about
senator
ganzer,
that
the
people
that
we
have
are
so
talented
and
doing
such
a
a
wonderful
job.
N
N
Conceived
or
considered
that
we
don't,
we
don't
believe
that
my
my
interest
in
this
goes
back
to
2005
when
I
was
assigned
by
senator
raju
the
chair
committee
on
to
look
at
higher
education
in
2005,
and
I-
and
I
realized
this-
this
misunderstanding
that
I
think
occurred
relative
to
a
little
too
much
constitutional
power
and
perceived
constitutional
power,
and
so
this
is
just
an
effort
to
correct
that
and
get
the
legislature
back
to
where
the
founders
intended
it
to
be
with
their
input.
So,
thank
you.
A
Thank
completely
very
much,
and
I
I
know
the
majority
leader
and
I
are
both
very
proud-
that
william
s,
boyd
law
school,
has
moved
up
to
60th
in
the
us
news
in
the
world
to
report
rankings
of
law
schools
around
the
country
and
we're
very
proud
of
of
all
the
hard
work
that
our
our
former
professors
are
doing
down
there
at
unlv.
F
N
Yes,
we
have
see-
and
I
don't
want
to
interrupt
senator
lou,
but
we
we
have
seen
that
amendment.
The
problem
with
that
amendment
is
that
it
goes
in
the
opposite
direction
in
terms
of
what
we're
trying
to
complem
con
accomplish
by
by
clarifying
this
language,
it
makes
it
far
more
complicated
when
we
took
an
amendment
last
time
it
put
in
language
about
oh,
I
can't
remember
the
language
now,
but
it
was.
N
I
think
we
trust
the
legislature
and
and
frankly
the
anchi
to
to
to
work
through
those
kinds
of
issues,
and
we
don't
want
to
further
confuse
the
issue
in
a
session
where
we're
trying
to
simplify
the
issue.
F
So,
thank
you.
Thank
you
senator
hardy.
I
appreciate
that
I
just
you
know
just
came
through
in
my
email
and
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
whether
you
were
going
to
accept
it
or
not.
So
I
could
consider
that
when
we're
talking
about
this,
thank
you.
A
O
O
O
E
E
This
is
why
the
vegas
chamber
has
a
long
and
consistent
history
of
supporting
higher
education
reform
initiatives
in
our
state,
and
it
is
for
that
reason
that
the
vegas
chamber
is
supporting
sjr
7.
governance.
Reform
has
been
an
ongoing
discussion
in
this
building
for
many
years
and
the
need
to
fix
our
governance
structure
persist
and
should
be
addressed,
and
we
recognize,
as
was
stated
previously,
that
the
language
of
ajr5
that
eventually
became
ballot
question
1
was
confusing
to
voters
this
past
november.
E
Sjr
7
would
provide
much
needed
clarity
between
the
board
of
regents
and
the
state
legislature,
while
at
the
same
time
enact
governance
reform
that
many
in
our
state
are
seeking.
We
do
recognize.
There
have
been
recent
efforts
by
nc
to
align
education,
but
for
the
long-term
benefits
of
both
students
and
employers.
We
need
a
reformed,
higher
education
governance
structure.
We
can
depend
on
for
the
long
term.
This
is
good
public
policy
that
is
based
on
sound
reasoning,
data
and
facts.
We
urge
this
body
to
pass
fjr7.
E
O
K
This
constitutional
amendment
is
needed
to
ensure
that
the
nevada
system
of
higher
education
and
university
board
of
regents
are
handled
accountable
and
that
there
is
transparency
and
oversight
over
higher
education
in
our
state.
The
board
of
regents
should
be
removed
from
the
from
the
nevada
constitution.
K
There
should
be
no
ambiguity
that
there
are
fourth
branch
of
government
and
they
should
answer
to
the
legislature.
I'd
just
like
to
echo
the
congress
that
others
before
may
have
already
made
and
she's
the
third
largest
line
item
in
the
nevada
state
budget.
Yet
it
lacks
sufficient
oversight
and
there
have
been
numerous
controversies
regarding
regions
and
the
system
as
a
whole,
the
regents
and
by
extension
and
sheep
hide
behind
their
constitutional
status
in
order
to
skirt
proper
oversight.
K
I
did
some
research
on
the
board
of
regents
have
compiled
a
list
of
over
120
news
articles
over
the
past
five
years
detailing
controversies
and
problems
with
the
board,
former
chancellors
and
their
treatment
of
certain
institutions
in
the
state,
and
there
is
this
much
negative.
Media
coverage
towards
a
certain
subject
is
indicative
of
a
much
larger
issue.
K
It
is.
It
is
disheartening
to
hear
that
a
common
sense
issue
such
as
updating
the
constitutionality
of
a
board
to
the
needs
of
a
21st
century
nevada,
is
turned
into
a
regional
fight.
You
will
hear
this
one
hearing
opposing
testimony
towards
sjr7
I'd,
just
like
to
say
that
what
is
right
for
southern
nevada
is
right
for
the
state
as
a
whole
and
removing
the
board
of
regents
from
the
constitution
is
the
right
move
for
all
nevadans.
O
Q
Good
evening,
good
evening
to
chair
orange
shelton
community
for
the
record,
my
name
is
olivia
checky,
first
name
o-l-I-v-I-a
last
name
c-h-e-c-h-e,
and
I
am
a
political
science
and
public
policy
student
at
the
university
of
nevada,
las
vegas.
I
also
serve
as
the
senate
president
for
csun
student
government
and
today
I
strongly
urge
your
support
of
sjr7
because
it
will
give
students
like
me
a
stronger
voice
in
our
future.
Q
I've
seen
students
hurt
by
the
implementation
of
student
surcharges
during
a
global
pandemic,
unprofessional
behavior
from
elected
regents
and
reprehensible
statements
on
public
record
that
went
unchecked
until
there
was
public
outrage
drawing
attention
to
the
situation.
However,
this
movement
isn't
about
an
individual
or
individual
actions.
Q
Last
november
ballot
question
1,
narrowly
lost
by
3
877
votes
or
approximately
a
0.3
percent
margin.
The
tally
on
question
1
was
extremely
close,
and
I
firmly
believe
that
nevada
voters
would
have
supported
the
measure
had
it
not
been
for
the
confusing
language,
as
shown
by
the
over
59
000
voters
who
voted
for
question
two
but
not
question
one.
Q
Now
is
not
the
time
to
give
up
on
progress
here
we
have
an
opportunity
to
give
voters
another
say
in
how
their
public
dollars
are
spent
on
higher
education
and
how
we
can
improve
educational
outcomes
for
students.
Like
me,
as
someone
who
is
really
connected
to
their
university,
I
can
assure
you
that
some
of
the
folks,
most
impacted
by
the
subject
matter,
were
and
are
on
board
I'm
hungry
for
positive
change,
and
I
know
I'm
not
the
only
student
who
feels
this
way.
Q
O
O
Q
My
name
is
vanessa
booth,
v-a-n-e-s-s-a
for
the
record
good
afternoon,
chair
and
the
senate
committee
on
legislative
operations
and
elections.
My
name
is
vanessa
booth
and
I'm
a
public
policy
and
political
science
major
at
the
university
of
nevada,
las
vegas.
I
also
serve
as
a
csun
senator
and
as
the
current
news
editor
for
the
unlv
scarlet
gracie
press
today.
I
am
here
to
testify
not
on
behalf
of
my
affiliations,
but
instead
on
behalf
of
the
several
thousands
of
students
who
attend
unlv
every
semester
and
feel
that
they
have
been
overspoken
for
far
too
long.
Q
The
nevada
system
of
higher
education
has
the
potential
to
grow
as
an
institution
only
if
we
allow
modernization
and
reform
to
occur
to
promote
more
inquisitivity
within
our
madisonian
system.
Today,
I'm
here
to
strongly
urge
you
all
to
vote
in
support
of
sjr7
as
a
student
at
unlv
who
was
avid
about
the
passing
of
ballot
question
one.
Q
I
remember
several
times
throughout
last
fall
speaking
to
family
members
and
friends
about
the
ballot
initiative,
but
learning
that
they
were
confused
about
the
wording
of
the
bill
and
felt
that
they
made
an
uninformed
decision
and
regretted
their
initial
vote.
After
learning
it
didn't
pass.
Many
today
will
try
to
argue
in
opposition
stating
that
it
did
not
pass
because
it
wasn't
supported.
However,
I
strongly
urge
this
committee
to
not
strip
the
rights
of
voters
in
nevada
ballot
question.
One
failed
by
the
smallest
margin
possible
as
public
servants.
Q
We
must
actively
fight
to
educate
our
constituents
on
understanding
the
difficult
legal
jargon
that
comes
along
with
these
ballot
initiatives,
and
that's
why
I
strongly
believe
sjr7
should
be
passed
to
give
voters
the
second
chance
that
they
deserve
by
passing
sjr7.
We
will
be
ensuring
our
federal
dollars
go
back
to
the
classroom,
to
support
students
like
me
and
will
modernize
how
we
govern
higher
education.
Q
The
last
time
her
education
governance
structure
was
reformed
was
around
1864
the
fact
that
our
governing
system
hasn't
been
reformed
or
modernized
at
all
severely
concerns
me
as
a
political
science
major,
given
that
there
isn't
an
updated
system
of
checks
and
balances
within
mg.
Accountability,
transparency
and
oversight
are
key
to
a
thriving
system.
I
encourage
you
all
to
support
sjr7
it's
time
for
modernization,
adaptation
and
for
entities
to
join
other
states
and
thriving
through
adapting
the
needs
of
their
state
and
students.
Thank
you.
I.
Q
O
K
It's
been
a
long
day,
mr
chairman,
and
I
won't
be
little
or
I
won't
be,
take
up
a
lot
of
your
time.
We
believe
that
the
increased
accountability
and
transparency
is
a
good
thing.
You
know,
by
allowing
governance,
to
remain
in
place,
but
with
greater
oversight.
The
system
for
higher
education
will
still
be
able
to
function
and
we'll
all
be
better
off
for
it.
A
O
K
K
Our
amendment
broadens
the
constitutional
language,
establishing
the
state
university
to
include
all
departments
appropriate
for
modern
institutions
of
higher
education.
It
makes
explicit
the
authority
for
future
legislatures
to
create
institutions
of
higher
education
separate
from
the
state
university.
K
The
board
of
regents
is
retained
in
the
constitution,
but
the
amendment
clarifies
that
the
board
is
part
of
the
executive
branch
explicitly
and
that
discovered
knee
duties
are
prescribed
by
law,
the
original
intent,
but
it
removes
the
control
and
management
language
recognizing
the
resistance
of
voters
to
relinquish
their
right
to
elect
regents.
It
retains
elected
regents
as
a
majority
of
the
board
that
allows
additional
regions
to
be
appointed.
K
We
truly
believe
these
changes
would
better
implement
the
stated
goals
of
the
proponents
of
sjr7,
while
not
leaving
voters
so
confused
about
what
will
happen
if
the
board
of
regents
is
removed
from
the
constitution
entirely.
The
primary
point
of
confusion
on
question
1
was
being
told
it
would
not
change
the
election
of
the
regents.
While
the
amendment
removed
the
election
of
the
regents.
K
O
P
Thank
you.
My
name
is
jake
tibbetts,
that's
j,
a
k,
e
t
I
b
b,
I
t
t
s
and
I'm
the
eureka
county
natural
resources
manager
speaking
on
behalf
of
eureka
county
today,
so
chair,
orrin,
shaw
and
members
of
the
community.
Thank
you
for
allowing
eureka
county
to
provide
our
opinion
and
insights
on
sjr7
eureka
county
is
opposed
to
sjr7.
P
We
note
that
question
1
based
on
ager
5,
which
proposed
to
effectively
do
the
same
thing,
was
resoundingly
rejected
by
eureka
county
voters
with
over
76
percent
voting
against
it.
This
large
margin
in
eureka
county
is
not
due
to
folks,
not
understanding
the
question
beyond
arguing
about
the
merits
of
moving
the
board
of
regents
under
direct
control
of
the
legislature.
P
We
are
primarily
concerned
with
and
opposed
to,
the
provision
on
line,
13
and
14
of
page
5,
proposing
to
amend
section
4
of
the
nevada
constitution
by
adding
the
open-ended
power
of
the
legislature
to
designate
additional
quote
other
departments
deemed
appropriate
for
the
state
university
end
quote:
we
believe
this
language
is
overreach
and
muddies
the
waters
related
to
land-grant
status
by
including
yet
to
be
identified
or
defined
quote.
Additional
end
quote
departments:
this
isn't
consistent
with
the
original
land
grant
intent
and
the
land
grant
mission
please
at
a
minimum
strike
this
language
from
sjr
7.
O
K
G
This
is
the
main
reason.
Elected
boards
are
preferable
to
appointed
or
hybrid
models.
Appointed
officials
are
shielded
by
an
appointing
authority,
who
is
typically
significant.
Other
responsibilities,
in
addition
to
board
appointments,
it's
extremely
rare
to
see
an
elected
official
voted
out
of
office
over
the
actions
or
conduct
of
another
official
they
have
appointed.
This
is
truer
still
when
the
appointment
is
made
by
another
deliberate
body.
G
Look
democracy
can
be
messy,
money
can
have
a
substantial
influence
on
elections,
and
sometimes
campaigns
are
negative
and
turn
off.
Voters
oftentimes
our
preferred
candidates,
do
not
win.
While
these
challenges
are
real,
there's
certainly
not
enough
to
abandon
our
system
of
democratic
governance.
Instead,
we
should
continue
our
efforts
to
make
elections
more
democratic
nsca
supports
the
direction
of
expanding
democracy,
and
we
will
continue
our
commitment
to
engage
in
increasing
electoral
participation
and
education.
O
O
O
P
P
As
this
committee
is
aware,
the
very
issues
now
presented
by
sjr7
were
debated
and
discussed
by
the
legislature
for
nearly
four
years
and
ultimately
became
question.
One
on
last
year's
ballot.
The
constitutional
amendments
presented
by
question.
One
sought
to
change
156
years
of
nevada
history,
the
people
of
nevada
rejected
those
changes.
This
occurred
only
four
months
ago.
P
Our
democracy
mandates
that
the
collective
wisdom
of
the
voters
be
respected.
Over
the
past
few
years,
our
two
major
universities
have
achieved
r1
carnegie
research
status.
We
have
two
thriving
medical
schools
in
southern
and
northern
nevada.
We
have
a
top-tier
law
school
and
the
nationally
renowned
research
institute.
P
Sjr7
does
nothing
to
improve
higher
education
in
nevada.
It
does
nothing
to
advance
research,
it
does
nothing
to
improve
workforce
development
or
our
communities.
Most
importantly,
it
does
nothing
to
help
students,
the
delivery
of
instruction,
the
growth
of
campuses
and
the
retention
of
top
faculty.
Rather,
this
measure
creates
a
cloud
of
uncertainty.
P
Significantly
lowers
the
morale
of
our
faculty
and
staff
and
impedes
our
short
and
long-term
strategic
goals
and
planning.
It
is,
in
short,
a
significant
distraction
from
our
core
mission.
On
behalf
of
the
board
of
regents,
I
respectfully
urge
this
committee
to
reconsider,
repeating
this
effort
and
turn
a
new
chapter.
P
P
O
O
A
O
O
G
Hello,
my
name
is
scanner
of
the
second
benjalone,
that's
b-e-n-j-e-l-l-o-u-n,
my
apologies.
I've
seem
to
have
been
lost
in
the
queue.
May
I
give
a
comment
in
favor
of
sj07?
G
Yes,
that's,
okay!
I
will
thank
you
very
much
so
yeah
good
evening
good
afternoon
to
owen
shaw
and
the
committee,
I'm
the
my
name
is
naseem,
I'm
the
attorney
general
for
the
university
of
las
vegas
student
government,
I'm
here
to
testify
behalf
of
my
constituents
and
both
students
in
favor
of
sg07.
As
a
non-traditional
student,
someone
who
came
to
this
university
at
the
age
of
15,
I
spent
the
last
two
years
unable
to
directly
influence
my
system
of
higher
education
through
the
ballot
box.
G
Don't
be
not
the
only
individual
result
of
a
chance
to
express
such
influence
due
to
the
ambiguous
and
inaccessible
language
of
age
of
five,
many
have
cast
their
ballots
without
being
able
to
discern
the
true
effect
of
their
vote.
I
urge
this
committee
to
pass
this
bill
into
grant
nevadans
the
right
and
opportunity
to
express
the
opinion
on
this
matter
again.
It's
time
that
we
look
forward
and
do
what
is
right.
It's
time
we
modernize
our
higher
education
and
create
a
system
of
equity,
accountability
and
transparency.
G
O
G
J-O-S-H-U-A-P-A-D-I-L-L-A,
I
also
got
lost
on
the
queue,
so
I
will
be
giving
comment
and
support
as
well.
I
am
the
csun
student
government
president.
I
am
latino
born
and
raised
here
in
las
vegas,
and
I
am
my
fourth
year
of
civil
engineering,
I'm
here
to
strongly
urge
your
support
for
sjr7,
as
we
saw
in
the
last
election,
the
language
of
agr5
narrow,
narrowly
failed,
which
has
extremely
excuse
me
in
the
last
length,
the
last
election,
the
language
of
agr
5,
narrowly
failed,
which
has
language
extremely
similar
to
sgr7.
G
That
was
due
the
complicated
and
hard
to
understand,
question
language
itself.
According
to
according
to
validpedia,
there
were
626
thousand
one
hundred
and
forty
six
votes
for
yes
and
six
hundred
and
thirty
thousand
zero
hundred
and
zero
twenty
three
votes
for
no
meaning.
It
only
failed
by
three
thousand
eight
hundred
and
seventy
seven
votes,
which
is
about
a
margin
of
zero
point
three
percent
clarifying
the
language
and
making
it
much
easier
for
people.
G
Seeing
as
this
was
the
biggest
issue
voters
face
when
trying
to
understand
the
measure
would
definitely
see
a
huge
difference
in
the
final
voting
numbers
as
a
concerned.
Unlv
student:
it
is
time
for
more
transparency
and
accountability
to
take
place
within
engi.
Everyone
knows
the
history
of
enchi
and
the
very
large
lack
of
public
trust
from
questionable
conduct
to
questionable
decisions
to
questionable
comments.
A
simple
google
search
of
nxi
public
trust
shows
many
articles
talking
about
these
things
and
I'm
sure
everyone
here
is
informed
on
some
of
these
examples.
G
Students
are
tired
of
the
questionable
behavior.
Increased
transparency
and
accountability
will
help
everyone
involved
and
she
the
public
students.
As
someone
who
talks
to
many
students,
students
are
ready
for
positive
change,
and
you
can
see
that
from
many
of
the
students
that
have
called
in
today
and
are
going
to
call
in
in
the
future.
This
is
a
large
opportunity
to
give
voters
another
shot
to
change
a
system
that
has
proven
to
be
in
dire
need
of
transparency
and
accountability,
give
voters
another
shot
to
make
a
positive
change
that
will
help
our
entire
state.
A
O
O
O
O
L
I
know
chair
orangehall,
I
want
to
thank
the
committee.
I
know
it's
been
a
late
day,
and
so
I
really
appreciate
you
listening
and
you're
good
questions
and
I
look
forward
to
working
with
you.
Thank
you
very
much.
A
Thank
you
very
much.
Senator
donderolu,
we'll
now
close
the
hearing
on
senate
joint
resolution,
seven
and
we'll
now
open
it
up
for
our
last
item
on
our
agenda
public
comment.
O
A
Time
right
well
and
again
in
light
of
the
technical
difficulties,
maybe
if
we
could
just
give
that
another
moment
just
to
make
sure
there's
not
anybody
trying
to
get
in
or
having
trouble.
A
O
A
Thank
you
very
much
broadcasting.
Thank
you,
members.
Thank
you
to
our
our
staff,
our
legislative
council
and
all
the
presenters,
and
we
are.